The laughing buddha?

[Forgotten]

I have seen a lot of him in homes around the UK, does he have any special meaning?

[Maitri]

I think the buying of buddhas has become quite fashionable. Maybe it is a fad?

I found this description of the laughing buddha:

The Buddhist figure named Hotei or Pu-Tai is better known as the jolly Laughing Buddha. In China, he is known as the Loving or Friendly One. He has become incorporated into Buddhist & Shinto culture and is based on an eccentric Chinese Ch'an (Zen) monk who lived over 1,000 years ago. Because of this monk's benevolent nature, he came to be regarded as an incarnation of the bodhisattva who will be Maitreya (the Future Buddha), but due to his large protruding stomach and smile, he has also been designated the "Laughing Buddha."

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

As far as I know, the 'Laughing Buddha" is not a buddha at all, rather he is the Chinese god of plenty.

Someone told me this, I dont know how reliable it is.

[rdwillia]

Even though he's not a traditional Buddha, I love it all the same. I have one and just seeing it always makes me smile! In my tradition we're taught to see all renditions of the Buddha as a true living Buddha and show respect. Although I was a little leary of putting him on my shrine.

Although yes, I believe Maitri is correct. It's become a fad and something of a good luck charm. Hence the rubbing of Buddha's belly is meant to bring good fortune.

Ricky

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


indeed, the so-called Laughing Buddha is actually Ho Tei of the Chinese cultural millieu.

he is often depicted with a large sack as well as a large belly. these are, actually, symbolic representations of charity and good-naturedness the large sack is full of sweets which he dispenses to the children as he wanders about, so the story goes.

to be frank with you, i've some small issues with beings which are not Buddhas being called Buddhas and so forth, but mostly this is just a symptom of the commericalization of religion, in my view.

metta,

~v

[rdwillia]

No, you're absolutely right, Vajradhara. Hence my reluctance of putting him on my shrine. My tradition doesn't actually recognize the jolly Buddha as a real Buddha, and the commercialization has turned the Buddha into a Santa Claus of sorts. All too often the term "Buddha" is thrown around a little too loosely, thereby causing us to forget about how truly rare Buddhahood really is... or so we think. Unless of course I'm the only one who's not enlightened.

Don't some schools teach that Buddhas permeate all of space, though?

My conclusion was to keep the smiling monk to remind me not to get too serious, as I have a tendency to forget that sometimes. He's more of an offering to the real Buddhas. But as far as actually considering him a traditional Buddha, obviously that wouldn't be accurate.

I have also heard that it is a Thai (Buddhist) belief that he is a future incarnation of Buddha Maitreya. That in the future all Buddhas will be fat and happy. True? I have no idea.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste rdwillia,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by rdwillia

No, you're absolutely right, Vajradhara. Hence my reluctance of putting him on my shrine. My tradition doesn't actually recognize the jolly Buddha as a real Buddha, and the commercialization has turned the Buddha into a Santa Claus of sorts.

i would tend to agree with you. my own shrine has the Buddha Shakyamuni and the Bodhisattvas Manjurshri and Avelokiteshavara, arrayed underneath Buddha Shakayamuni.

we have a "display" sort of thing in the living room where i display Ho Tei and a host of other Bodhisattvas and so forth.

i completely agree with your view regarding the commercialization of Buddhas and all of that sort of thing. in a very real sense, it seems like something vital is stripped out and a hollow husk presented to the consuming public.

All too often the term "Buddha" is thrown around a little too loosely, thereby causing us to forget about how truly rare Buddhahood really is... or so we think. Unless of course I'm the only one who's not enlightened.

actually, you are correct about this as well, at least from this world systems point of view all things being equal, there are few beings which are Buddhas and many, many beings which are Awakened. there is a difference between Enlightenment and being a Buddha, mostly to do with being able to accurately teach the Dharma, in my traditions view.

Don't some schools teach that Buddhas permeate all of space, though?

yes, this is the view, generally, of the Mahayana and Vajrayana Vehicles. there is some slight discussion of this in the Hinyana Vehicle, however, that isn't something which gets all that much emphasis.

generally speaking, this is part and parcel of what are called the Three Kayas, the Nirmanakaya, the Sambhogakaya and the Dharmakaya. briefly,

the Dharmakaya is something that is always present; it is rediscovered rather than created anew. Because it is atemporal and ahistorical, we cannot attribute change or transformation to it. Because it is passive and indeterminate in nature, Dharmakaya cannot manifest as a medium for one to work for the benefit of others, but it does give rise to the deterministic aspects of Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya.

Like the Dharmakaya, the Sambhogakaya is always present. It has to do with mental powers, with the ability of one's mind to manifest in relation to the five wisdoms. The Sambhogakaya is connected with communication, both on the verbal and nonverbal levels, and it is also associated with the idea of relating, so that speech here means not just the capacity to use words but the ability to communicate on all levels. Both the Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya aspects are already embodied within each sentient being, and fruition is a matter of coming to that realization.

Nirmanakaya is the physical aspect of an enlightened being, the medium through which communication and relating can be carried out. It can be said to be new or different, because it is only on the physical level that one can become transformed. In Tibetan the purified body, called ku, is the manifestation of the fully transformed body free from the influence of deeply set and inculcated karmic residues.

the interested reader is directed to this site for more details:

http://www.kagyu.org/buddhism/cul/cul02.html

My conclusion was to keep the smiling monk to remind me not to get too serious, as I have a tendency to forget that sometimes. He's more of an offering to the real Buddhas. But as far as actually considering him a traditional Buddha, obviously that wouldn't be accurate.

agree. i have noted a tendency in my own mindstream which seems to take itself quite seriously at times and attaches a great deal of importance to this seriousness. seeing Ho Tei smiling back at seriousness usually breaks the tension and the seriousness flows into joyousness.

I have also heard that it is a Thai (Buddhist) belief that he is a future incarnation of Buddha Maitreya. That in the future all Buddhas will be fat and happy. True? I have no idea.

it sort of depends on which school that a Thai Buddhist is practicing, more than anything else. the large belly is a symbol representing charity and compassion for others, so in this sense, yes, all the Buddhas which will arise in this world system will have fat bellies of course, i wouldn't usually use the term "happy" since that is part and parcel of Samsara. i would, however, conceed that it is a fine word to use, should no other be available. typically, i would use the term "blissful" if i had to

of course, these are my own views predicated on my understanding, such that it is

metta,

~v

[rdwillia]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it sort of depends on which school that a Thai Buddhist is practicing, more than anything else. the large belly is a symbol representing charity and compassion for others, so in this sense, yes, all the Buddhas which will arise in this world system will have fat bellies of course, i wouldn't usually use the term "happy" since that is part and parcel of Samsara. i would, however, conceed that it is a fine word to use, should no other be available. typically, i would use the term "blissful" if i had to

Sorry, admitedly a carelesss choice of words. I try to think before speaking (or typing) but sometimes it just spews forth! Thanks for the great clarification and link on the Three Kayas. Reading your posts are always so humbling as they always remind me of how much further I have to go! That really is a compliment.

In addition, I think that Ho Tei is most Westerner's first impression of the Buddha accurate or not. I saw Ho Tei long before I ever saw Buddha Shakyamuni and perhaps the monks blissful () appearance is what draws some of us to Buddhism. I guess I shouldn't be too hard on him. Thanks again!

-Ricky

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ricky (is that what you perfer?),


thank you for the kind words and the compliment. if there is any value that you derive from my words it is due to your own good karma ripening. the words i say have all been said before and you humble me with your praise.

i agree... i'm not sure why Ho Tei is as prevelant as he is, at least in terms of iconography as found in most of the Western Hemisphere nations.

speaking of symbolism....

i often wonder what the prototypical symbol of a religous path connotes to non-adherents. for instance, what does the image of a Crescent Moon connote? what does the image of a man being executed connote? what does the blissful expression of the Buddha connote?

i am quite curious about this sort of thing for as the old adage says... a picture is worth a thousand words.

metta,

~v

[Silverbackman]

Is this laughing Buddha the same as any other fat buddha? I have seen fat buddhas and skinny buddhas, and I always thought both were buddhas (perhaps the fat one was the second Buddha or something). So the fat Buddha is not Buddha at all huh? I always thought that fat Buddha did look out of the ordinary. This must mean that only this;

http://arkbooks.com/images/Links/703...sin-buddha.jpg

is the only Buddha, right?

[jiii]

The Buddha Putai, the Laughing Buddha, is not really supposed to be a representation of a Buddha deity. The Buddha Amitabha, for instance, is the primary Buddha of most Japanese forms of Buddhism/Zen Buddhism, but he is not a manifest Buddha. That is to say, he's not in any way related to a historical Buddha 'person', but is a Buddha that never materialized. The Buddha Putai, on the other hand, is supposedly a historical figure. Stories of him began in China, and as the Chan Buddhist tales and teachings made it to Japan, the Buddha Hotei became the Japanese Zen equivalent. However, whether or not he actually existed is probably just as fruitless a question as asking whether or not Lao Tzu existed...we will never know.

The Buddha Putai, however, does represent some very fundamental aspects of Zen Buddhism. In Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, a story is told of this character as the Monk Hotei (not sure which story it was). In reading Alan Watts book, Buddhism: Religion of No-Religion, he writes about this figure (pg 37-38):

"Some of you have seen the paintings of the Ten Stages of Spiritual Ox-herding. There are two sets of paintings: a heterodox sequence and an orthodox... The orthodox set of paintings does not end with [an] empty circle. The image of the empty circle is followed by two others. After a man has attained a state of emptiness -the state of no attachment to any spiritual or psychological or moral crutch- there follow two more steps. The first is called 'Returning to the Origin'... The last is called 'Entering the City with Gift-Bestowing Hands.' It show a picture of the Buddha Putai...who has an enormous belly, big ears, and carries around a colossal bag. What do you think his bag has in it? Trash, wonderful trash. Everything that children love. Things that everybody else has thrown away, and thought of as valueless, this Buddha collects and gives away to children. The saying is, 'He goes on his way without following the steps of the ancient sages. His door is closed' -that is, the door of his house-'and no glimpses of his interior life are to be seen.'"

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Is this laughing Buddha the same as any other fat buddha? I have seen fat buddhas and skinny buddhas, and I always thought both were buddhas (perhaps the fat one was the second Buddha or something). So the fat Buddha is not Buddha at all huh? I always thought that fat Buddha did look out of the ordinary. This must mean that only this;

http://arkbooks.com/images/Links/703...sin-buddha.jpg

is the only Buddha, right?

actually, Silverbackman, there are 7 named previous Buddhas and one more which is to come in the future.

of course, Buddhism teaches that there are billons and billions of world systems where Buddhas have arisen, our world system, and this epoc in particular, are quite fortunate in this regard.

metta,

~v

[rdwillia]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

thank you for the kind words and the compliment. if there is any value that you derive from my words it is due to your own good karma ripening. the words i say have all been said before and you humble me with your praise.

No! You're supposed to be helping me reduce my ego not inflate it! All that I can say in reply to that is I hope you're right. Don't be too humble, you are a highly respected fountain of knowledge, and as previously admitted by yourself, one highly skilled in the art of internet searching!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i agree... i'm not sure why Ho Tei is as prevelant as he is, at least in terms of iconography as found in most of the Western Hemisphere nations.

If where you are is anything similar to where I am, I think it's because he's erected in 99% of all Chinese food restaurants and nail salons the world over. Young children are told to "Rub the Buddha's belly" for good luck and then the misnomer and misinformation sticks!

speaking of symbolism....

i often wonder what the prototypical symbol of a religous path connotes to non-adherents. for instance, what does the image of a Crescent Moon connote? what does the image of a man being executed connote? what does the blissful expression of the Buddha connote?

Right-o! I'm interested in symbology as well! I'd love to get some formal education on symbolism in general. I think it's a good insight into other peoples' perspectives. Even a simple image such as a crow can represent so many different things to different cultures. To me, even before I was properly introduced to Buddhism, the "Buddha's" blissful expression connotated just that, blissfullness! Curiosity ensued and I wanted to know what the chubby guy was so pleased about. Ho Tei might have had a lot to do with my settling on Buddhism in, of course, a very subtle, perhaps even subconscious way!

And yes, Ricky is fine. That is my given name, I just tend to use rdwillia for everything electronic, as Ricky is almost always taken. Take care!

~Ricky

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually, Silverbackman, there are 7 named previous Buddhas and one more which is to come in the future.

of course, Buddhism teaches that there are billons and billions of world systems where Buddhas have arisen, our world system, and this epoc in particular, are quite fortunate in this regard.

metta,

~v

Yes, isn't the Dauli Lama a Buddha as well? What do you have to become a Buddha? How do people know and choose?

And by other world systems do you mean other planets and beings from other solar systems? Interesting.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Yes, isn't the Dauli Lama a Buddha as well? What do you have to become a Buddha? How do people know and choose

I have never heard of the Dauli Lama Do you mean the Dalai Lama?

He is not a Buddha, he considered to be a boddhisattva.

To become a buddha a person much purify the mind and reach perfect enlightenment or nirvana. A boddhisattva chooses not to enter nirvana, but to remain in samsara (this world of constant, cyclic suffering) and help others to reach nirvana.

Imagine one hundred people drowning at see, not a pleasant experience. A buddha is the one who learns to swim and reaches the shore where he is much, much happier. A boddhisattva is the one who has figured out how to swim but chooses not to swim to the shore until he has helped everyone else learn to swim too.

We are not drowning at sea, we are drowning in Samsara, the Buddhas have escaped samsara, which is the ultimate goal of all buddhists, but the boddhisattvas are still here with us, living life after life to help us all to escape.